1: % APJL MANUSCRIPT VERSION
2: % WRITTEN FOR APJ LETTERS BY PJW
3: % revised by GK on 10-Jan
4: % revised by PJW on 10 Jan
5: % revised by GK on 11-Jan
6: % revised by CSS/GK on 12-Jan
7: % tweaked by PJW on 13 Jan
8: % final revisons by GK and PJW on 14 Jan
9: % revisions after referee's report by PJW on 27 Jan
10: % additions/corrections by GK and CSS on 2 Feb
11: % minor modifications by GK on 5 Feb
12: % FOR PRINTING AT GSU ONLY
13: %\voffset=0.7 true in
14: %% LaTeX 2e format
15:
16: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
17: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
18: \usepackage{epsf}
19: %\usepackage{emulateapj5}
20: %\usepackage{apjfonts}
21: %\input apjfonts.sty
22:
23:
24:
25: %%% USE TO PRODUCE SINGLE SPACED SMALL PRINT VERSION
26:
27: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
28: % NOTE: THIS IS NEEDED TO PRINT AT GSU BUT IS NORMALLY COMMENTED OUT
29: %\voffset=0.2 true in
30: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
31:
32:
33:
34: \shorttitle{Quasar Intranight Optical Variability}
35: \shortauthors{Gopal-Krishna et al. }
36:
37:
38: \begin{document}
39:
40: \title{Clear Evidence for Intranight Optical Variability
41: in Radio-quiet Quasars}
42: %\title{The Dichotomy of Radio-loud/Radio-quiet Quasars:
43: %New Clues from their Intranight Optical Variability}
44:
45: \author{Gopal-Krishna}
46: \affil{National Centre for Radio Astrophysics,
47: Tata Institute of Fundamental Research,
48: Pune University Campus, Post Bag 3, Pune 411007,
49: India}
50: \email{krishna@ncra.tifr.res.in}
51:
52: \author{C.\ S.\ Stalin\altaffilmark{1}, Ram
53: Sagar}
54: \affil{State Observatory, Manora Peak, Naini Tal, 263129, India}
55: \email{stalin(sagar)@upso.ernet.in}
56:
57: \and
58: \author{Paul J.\ Wiita}
59: \affil{Department of Physics \& Astronomy, MSC 8R0314,
60: Georgia State University,
61: Atlanta, GA 30303-3088}
62: \email{wiita@chara.gsu.edu}
63:
64: \altaffiltext{1}{Presently, Visiting Fellow at NCRA/TIFR, Pune}
65:
66: \begin{abstract}
67: We present new clues to the problem of the radio loudness
68: dichotomy arising
69: from an extensive search for intranight
70: optical variability in seven sets of optically luminous
71: radio-quiet quasars and (radio-loud) BL Lacertae objects,
72: which are matched in optical luminosity and redshift.
73: Our monitoring of radio-quiet quasars has for the first
74: time clearly detected such intranight variability,
75: with peak-to-peak amplitudes $\sim$1\%, occurring with a
76: duty cycle of $\sim$ 1/6. The matched BL Lacs have both
77: higher variability amplitudes and duty cycles when observed in the same
78: fashion. We show that the much less pronounced intranight
79: variability of the radio-quiet quasars relative to BL Lacs can be
80: understood in terms of a modest misalignment of the
81: jets in radio-quiet quasars from the
82: line-of-sight. We thus infer that relativistic
83: particle jets
84: may well also
85: %probably do
86: emerge from radio-quiet quasars,
87: % as well,
88: but while traversing the short
89: optical-emitting distances, they
90: %are
91: could be snuffed out, possibly
92: through inverse Compton losses in the nuclear region.
93:
94: \end{abstract}
95:
96: \keywords{galaxies: active --- galaxies: jets --- BL Lacertae objects: general
97: --- quasars: general --- quasars: individual (1029$+$329, 1252$+$020)}
98:
99: \section{Introduction}
100:
101: The dichotomy of radio emission from quasars has been a
102: persistent hurdle in developing a general theoretical
103: framework for the emission from active
104: galactic nuclei (AGN). Whereas
105: the powerful jets of relativistic particles are
106: believed to be generic to the central engines of the radio-loud
107: subset
108: %\citep{ant93,urr95},
109: % UNFORTUNATELY, THE \citep COMMAND PRODUCES THE NUMBER OF THE REF
110: % NOT THE AUTHOR AND YEAR, SO IT ISN'T BEING IMPLEMENTED THROUGHOUT
111: (e.g.\ Antonucci 1993; Urry \& Padovani 1995),
112: the situation
113: remains confused as to the existence of such jets
114: in the radio-quiet majority
115: of quasars
116: %\citep{ant90,sop91,ter92,ste96,ive02}.
117: (e.g.\ Antonucci, Barvainis, \& Alloin 1990;
118: Sopp \& Alexander 1991; Terlevich et al.\ 1992;
119: Stein 1996; Ivezi{\'c} et al.\ 2002).
120:
121: Intranight optical variations (INOV) of blazars, established by using CCDs
122: as N-star photometers (e.g.\ Miller, Carini, \& Goodrich 1989;
123: Carini et al.\ 1992;
124: Noble et al.\ 1997) are now generally linked to the presence of
125: relativistic jets (e.g.\ Marscher, Gear, \& Travis 1992;
126: Wagner \& Witzel 1995; Noble et al.\ 1997).
127: Equally clear signatures
128: of jets have been lacking for radio-quiet quasars (RQQs),
129: despite several
130: searches for INOV in luminous RQQs
131: (Gopal-Krishna, Wiita, \& Altieri 1993; Gopal-Krishna, Sagar, \&
132: Wiita 1995;
133: %Sagar, Gopal-Krishna \& Wiita 1996;
134: de Diego et al.\ 1998; Rabbette et al.\ 1998;
135: Gopal-Krishna et al.\ 2000).
136: Although radio observations have revealed faint, aligned
137: structures in a handful of RQQs
138: (Miller, Rawlings, \& Saunders 1993; Kellermann et al.\
139: 1994; Papadopoulos et al.\ 1995; Kukula et al.\ 1998; Blundell \& Rawlings 2001)
140: the case for relativistic jets as a generic feature of RQQs remains
141: unsettled (Sopp \& Alexander 1991; Wilson \& Colbert 1995;
142: Stein 1996; Kukula et al.\ 1998).
143: %; Ivezi{\'c} et al.\ 2002).
144:
145: In our earlier papers, statistical
146: evidence for intranight optical fluctuations was presented for some
147: RQQs (Gopal-Krishna et al.\ 1995, 2000;
148: Sagar, Gopal-Krishna, \& Wiita 1996),
149: %; Sagar et al.\ 1996),
150: but in no case was it overwhelmingly convincing.
151: The results of several independent
152: studies have been discrepant and hence inconclusive
153: (Jang \& Miller 1995, 1997; de Diego et al.\ 1998;
154: Rabbette et al.\ 1998; Romero,
155: Cellone \& Combi 1999). Jang \& Miller
156: (1995, 1997) claimed detection of INOV in far more BL Lacs than
157: in radio-quiet AGN from a heterogeneous sample.
158: For the RQQs Ton 951 and Ton 1057, Jang \& Miller (1995, 1997) presented
159: differential light curves (DLCs) showing up to $\sim 8\%$ variations on
160: hour-like time scales. However, optical luminosities of both these AGNs
161: are modest (M$_B$ $>$ $-$24.3, taking $H_0 = 50$ km s$^{-1}$Mpc$^{-1}$ and
162: $q_0 = 0$), and close to the critical value below which radio
163: properties are thought to become like those of Seyfert galaxies
164: (Miller, Peacock, \& Mead 1990). At these lower levels of AGN/galactic
165: light ratios, false indications of variability, produced by seeing
166: variations which include different amounts of host galactic light
167: within the photometric aperture,
168: becomes very probable (Cellone, Romero, \& Combi 2000).
169: Romero et al.\ (1999) monitored a sample of 23 southern objects:
170: 8 RQQs and 15 blazars. None of their 8 RQQs was clearly found to vary down to
171: 1\% rms, while 9 of their 15 blazars showed INOV above that level.
172: Rabbette et al.\ (1998) also failed to detect INOV in
173: a sample of 23 high luminosity RQQs, but their
174: detection threshold was $\sim$ 0.1 mag.
175: In contrast to these tentative results implying little
176: INOV for RQQs, de Diego et al.\ (1998)
177: concluded that microvariability is
178: at least as common among RQQs (6 detections in 30 sessions)
179: as it is among the (relativistically beamed)
180: core-dominated radio-loud quasars (CDQs) (5 in 30), commonly
181: deemed as blazars along with BL Lacs. Each of their 17 RQQs
182: had a CDQ counterpart of
183: nearly matching brightness and redshift.
184: The observational and analysis procedures
185: of de Diego et al.\ (1998)
186: differ radically
187: from those of all other programs,
188: including ours. They usually monitored each object only a few (3--9)
189: times per night at intervals of $\sim$30 minutes; they
190: divided each of these observations into 5, roughly
191: one-minute each, exposures. de Diego et al.\ (1998) used small
192: ($\sim 2^{\prime \prime}$) apertures and estimated their
193: errors through an
194: analysis of variance technique which involved only
195: one comparison star. Compared to those of other groups,
196: these techniques lead to less trustworthy results.
197: %and hence their data are difficult to interpret.
198: %Gopal-Krishna, Stalin, Sagar, \& Wiita (in preparation) gives
199: %a more complete discussion of the difficulties with these earlier
200: %studies.
201:
202: %In \S 2 we discuss the observations of RQQs and BL Lacs we have
203: %carried out and in \S 3 we give the results of the data analysis.
204: %A discussion and conclusions comprise \S 4.
205:
206:
207: \section{Observations}
208:
209: Motivated by the need to look for a signature of relativistic
210: nuclear jets in intrinsically luminous, {\it bona-fide} RQQs, we
211: launched in 1998 a program of R-band monitoring of seven
212: sets of bright (m$_B$ $\sim$ 16) AGN, each set falling in a narrow
213: redshift bin between $z~= 0.17$ and $2.2$, and consisting of a RQQ,
214: a BL Lac (except in the highest
215: $z$ bin), a CDQ and a radio lobe-dominated quasar.
216: %These sets cover a redshift range from 0.17 to 1.92, and Table 1
217: %lists properties of the RQQ and BL Lac members of this sample.
218: Thus, the four AGN
219: classes in the sample are matched in the $z-M_B$ plane. We
220: monitored each of the AGN on $\ge~3$ nights, taking $\sim$ 5
221: exposures per hour, for durations between 4 and 8 hours per night.
222: This program required 113
223: nights during 1998--2002, details of which are
224: presented elsewhere (Stalin 2002; Gopal-Krishna et al.,
225: in preparation).
226: %, Stalin, Sagar \& Wiita,
227: %; Stalin et al., in preparation);
228: Here we summarize the main
229: results obtained for the RQQs and BL Lacs over the course
230: of 53 nights of observations (Table 1). All seven
231: RQQs are not only optically luminous, ($-24.3 \ge M_B \ge -29.8$)
232: but also genuinely radio-quiet, with $R < 1$, where $R$
233: is the rest-frame ratio of 5 GHz to 250 nm
234: flux densities (Stocke et al.\ 1992).
235:
236:
237: The R-band CCD observations were made using
238: %the CCD detector (cooled to $-120^{\circ}$C) installed at
239: the 1.04-meter
240: Sampurnanand telescope of the State Observatory, Naini Tal, India.
241: %On each night an average bias frame was obtained and subtracted from
242: %each image frame, after clipping the cosmic-ray hits.
243: %Flat-fielding
244: %f the frames was done by taking several twilight sky frames which
245: %were median combined to generate the flat-field template
246: %used to derive the final frames.
247: At least two, but usually more, comparison stars, similar in
248: brightness to the target AGN were present on each (bias subtracted,
249: flat-fielded) CCD frame. We
250: derived differential light curves (DLCs) of the AGN relative to these
251: comparison stars and also for all the pairs of comparison stars. Thus, we
252: identified and discounted any comparison stars which themselves varied.
253:
254:
255:
256: Photometry of the AGN and the comparison stars was carried out
257: using the same circular aperture, and the instrumental magnitudes
258: were determined using the {\it phot} task in
259: IRAF\footnote
260: {IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories which is
261: operated by the Association of Universities for research in Astronomy, Inc.
262: under co-operative agreement with the National Science Foundation}.
263: For each
264: night a range of aperture radii was considered and the one that minimized
265: the variance of the DLC of the steadiest comparison star pair was
266: accepted. The typical aperture radius used was 4$^{\prime \prime}$;
267: however,
268: the DLCs are not very sensitive to the chosen radius.
269: Variations
270: exceeding 0.01-mag over the night can be readily detected on these DLCs.
271:
272:
273:
274:
275: \section{Results}
276: Fig.\ 1 shows the DLCs of two of the RQQs, 1029$+$329
277: ($R < 0.2$) and 1252$+$020 ($R = 0.5$) (Table 1).
278: %($M_B = -26.2$; $R = 0.5$).
279: In each case, the
280: DLCs of the RQQ against all three comparison stars
281: (top three panels) are consistent in showing a gradual fading by $\sim 1\%$
282: over 4--5 hours, whereas the simultaneous
283: DLCs involving the same three comparison stars are steady to within $\sim$0.3\%.
284:
285:
286:
287: Conceivably, the decline in the DLCs of the RQQs could be an artifact of
288: the color difference, $\Delta C_{QS}$, between the RQQ and the comparison
289: stars, leading to a differential attenuation with varying zenith distance
290: (i.e., airmass).
291: However, this possibility can be discounted, since no such systematic
292: fading is evident on the star-star DLCs shown in the two bottom panels
293: in Fig.\ 1, for which the color difference is comparable to $\Delta C_{QS}$
294: (except for a brief flare seen near 17.3 UT in the DLC for the star pair
295: S2$-$S1,
296: which is clearly attributable to a variation of star S2).
297: Another potential caveat is that a systematic variation in the point
298: spread function (PSF) could have led to a varying contribution from the
299: RQQ host galaxy within the photometric aperture (Cellone et al.\ 2000).
300: This possibility can also be excluded, since
301: the host galaxy is expected to contribute $ < 10\%$ of the flux
302: of each of these luminous RQQs, and is also expected to be encompassed well
303: within the $\sim 4^{\prime\prime}$ aperture radius used. In addition,
304: we have determined
305: the PSF for the successive CCD frames using the comparison stars
306: and find that the PSF actually narrowed progressively
307: by $\simeq 1^{\prime \prime}$ over both of these nights. This
308: implies that the actual
309: fading of the two RQQs are marginally larger than those recorded on the
310: DLCs (Fig.\ 1). We conclude
311: that the observed INOV of these two RQQs, although small,
312: is real. All these checks have not been employed in earlier studies,
313: so these two cases with well resolved brightness gradients represent the clearest evidence
314: reported so far for intranight variability of luminous RQQs. (Similar
315: reasoning is applicable to all the cases of INOV reported here).
316: The results for the RQQs and BL Lacs in the
317: sample are summarized in Table 1.
318:
319: There exists a wide discrepancy between the reported duty cycles (DC)
320: of INOV for RQQs {\it vis-a-vis} BL Lac objects/blazars
321: (Jang \& Miller 1997; de Diego et
322: al.\ 1998; Romero et al.\ 1999).
323: Contributions to the DC are weighted by the number of
324: hours (in the rest-frame) for which each source was monitored
325: (Romero et al.\ 1999),
326: \begin{equation}
327: DC = 100 \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n} N_i(1/\Delta t_i)}{\sum_{i=1}^{n}(1/\Delta t_i)} \ \ \%,
328: \end{equation}
329: \noindent where $\Delta t_i = \Delta t_{i,obs}(1 + z)^{-1}$ is the
330: duration (corrected for cosmological redshift) of a monitoring session of
331: the source in the selected class; $N_i$ equals 0 or 1, if the object was
332: non-variable or variable during $\Delta t_i$, respectively.
333:
334:
335: For RQQs, counting only the sessions for which INOV was
336: positively detected (Table 1), we find that DC = 17\%.
337: %; it goes up to 20\% if
338: %the one case of `probable INOV' is also included (last column of Table 1).
339: This can be compared with DC = 72\% determined here for the BL Lacs.
340: Our data also allow, for the first time, estimation
341: of DC for different ranges of
342: peak-to-peak variability amplitude,
343: %\begin{equation}
344: $\psi \equiv [(D_{\rm max} - D_{\rm min})^2 - 2\sigma^2]^{1/2}$.
345: %\end{equation}
346: Here, $D$ is the differential magnitude,
347: $\sigma^2 = \eta^2<\sigma_{\rm err}^2>$, with
348: $\eta$ the factor by which the average of the measurement errors
349: ($\sigma_{\rm err}$, as given by ${\it phot}$ algorithm)
350: should be multiplied; we find $\eta = 1.50$ (Stalin 2002; Gopal-Krishna
351: et al., in preparation). The results are given in Fig.\ 2.
352: All the RQQs have $\psi < 3\%$, and for $\psi < 3\%$, the DCs for BL Lacs
353: and RQQs are very similar. However, stronger INOV, with
354: %$\psi < 0.03$ is a comparable 19\%; however, larger INOV, with
355: $\psi > 3\%$, is exclusive to the BL Lacs (DC = 53\%).
356: Still, we note our sample is small, and it would be very useful to have
357: similarly sensitive and careful measurements of a larger number of matched pairs
358: to allow more confident estimates of duty cycles and distributions of $\psi$.
359:
360: To quantify the variability, we have employed a statistical criterion
361: based on the parameter $C$, similar to that
362: followed by Jang \& Miller (1997), with the added advantage that for each
363: AGN we have DLCs relative to multiple comparison stars. This allows us to
364: discard any variability candidates for which the multiple DLCs do not show
365: clearly correlated trends, both in amplitude and time. We define $C$ for a
366: given DLC as the ratio of its standard deviation, $\sigma_T$, and the
367: mean $\sigma$ of its individual data points, $\eta\sigma_{\rm err}$.
368: This value of $C_i$ for the $i^{th}$ DLC of the AGN has the corresponding
369: probability, $p_i$, that the DLC is
370: steady (non-variable), assuming a normal distribution. For a given AGN
371: we then compute the joint probability, $P$, by multiplying the values of
372: $p_i$'s for individual DLCs available for the AGN. The effective
373: $C$ parameter, $C_{\rm eff}$, corresponding to $P$, is given in Table 1 for
374: each variable AGN; our definition of variability is $C_{\rm eff} > 2.57$,
375: which corresponds to a confidence level in excess of 99\%.
376: This is followed by the variability amplitude, $\psi$.
377: We also note that for these AGN all the DLCs between
378: comparison stars were found to show statistically insignificant
379: variability.
380:
381: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}
382: To what extent can the observed INOV of
383: RQQs be reconciled with the much more pronounced INOV of the
384: BL Lacs? Within the canonical jet picture, any
385: %intrinsic
386: flux variations associated with the relativistic outflow
387: will have their time-scales shortened and amplitudes boosted in the
388: observer's frame. As usual, the Doppler factor is
389: $\delta = [\Gamma(1 - \beta {\rm cos}(\theta)]^{-1}$,
390: where $\beta = v/c$, $\Gamma = (1 - \beta^2)^{-1/2}$ is the bulk
391: Lorentz factor of the jet, and $\theta$ is its viewing angle.
392: Then the observed flux, $S_{obs}$ is given in terms of the
393: intrinsic flux, $S_{int}$,
394: \begin{equation}
395: S_{obs} = \left( \frac{\delta}{1 + z} \right)^{p} S_{int},
396: \end{equation}
397: where $p = (2 - \alpha)$ for a continuous jet (e.g.\ Urry \&
398: Padovani 1995);
399: the spectral index $\alpha \equiv d{\rm ln}(S_{\nu})/d{\rm ln}(\nu)$,
400: and we have assumed
401: $\alpha = - 1$ (Stocke et al.\ 1992).
402: Similarly, the beaming shortens the observed time
403: scale to $\Delta t_{obs} = \Delta t_{int}(1 + z)/\delta$.
404:
405: The effect of Doppler beaming on the observed DLCs
406: is illustrated in Fig.\ 3, taking the example of the BL Lac
407: object AO 0235$+$164, for which we found a large ($\psi \sim $13\%) and rapid
408: ($\tau$ $\sim$ 3.5 hr) variation on 1999 November 12. We use the estimated
409: $\delta_o$ = 8.1 for this object (Zhang, Fan, \& Cheng 2002)
410: to simulate the DLCs for lower values of
411: $\delta$, relevant to observers at larger viewing angles.
412: %from the jet.
413: This mapping is
414: achieved simply by compressing the observed DLC amplitudes by
415: %a factor
416: $(\delta/\delta_o)^p$ and, simultaneously, stretching the DLC
417: in time by a factor $(\delta_o/\delta)$. From these
418: %(partially) Doppler de-beamed
419: simulated DLCs
420: it is evident that observers even marginally
421: misaligned from the jet direction will monitor a drastically reduced INOV,
422: both in amplitude and rapidity, for the same BL Lac which appears
423: highly variable to a somewhat better aligned observer (Fig.\ 3). For instance,
424: if $\theta = 5^{\circ}$ for the jet of AO 0235$+$164, the
425: estimated $\delta_o$ = 8.1 corresponds to $\beta$ = 0.978. This would
426: give $\delta \simeq$ 4 and 2, respectively, for modestly misaligned
427: viewing angles
428: of $\theta = 15^{\circ}$ and $\theta = 25^{\circ}$, thought to be typical of
429: RQQs (Antonucci 1993; Barthel 1989).
430: %The simulated light
431: %urves for such modestly misaligned
432: %(Fig.\ 3), which, as we have shown, is indeed the case for RQQs.
433:
434: We thus suggest that the mere low level
435: of intranight optical variability of RQQs in no way rules out their
436: having optical synchrotron jets as active intrinsically as the jets of
437: BL Lacs. The large difference in the radio properties
438: could arise from inverse Compton quenching of the
439: jet in a majority of quasars, occurring beyond the very small
440: physical scale
441: probed by the nuclear optical synchrotron jet emission. A possible
442: signature of such quenching is the hard X-ray spectral tail found in
443: some RQQs (George et al.\ 2000).
444: This emission from the (modestly misaligned) jets is seen despite the extremely strong forward
445: flux boosting of the X-rays expected from the inverse Compton scattering
446: of external (e.g., broad emission line) photons
447: by the relativistic jet ($\propto~\delta^{(4-2\alpha)}$, Dermer 1995).
448: It remains possible that the weak fluctuations seen in RQQs
449: arise from a different process, such as fluctuations from an accretion disk
450: (e.g.\ Mangalam \& Wiita 1993), while the larger ones seen only in
451: BL Lacs might originate from jets. Nonetheless,
452: our observations and analysis lend some support
453: to the concept of a jet-disk symbiosis
454: (e.g.\ Falcke, Malkan \& Biermann 1995)
455: where jets emerge ubiquitously from accretion flows; hence,
456: the dichotomy between radio-loud and radio-quiet quasars
457: need not imply a fundamental difference in their
458: central engines.
459:
460: \acknowledgments
461: We thank Vasant Kulkarni, John McFarland and Dick Miller for discussions,
462: Dan Harris and Alan Marscher for
463: correspondence, and the anonymous referee for helpful suggestions.
464: PJW is grateful for support from RPE funds at GSU
465: and for continuing hospitality at the Department of Astrophysical
466: Sciences at Princeton.
467:
468:
469:
470:
471: \begin{thebibliography}{}
472:
473: \bibitem[Antonucci(1993)]{ant93} Antonucci, R. 1993, \araa, 31, 473
474:
475: \bibitem[Antonucci et al.(1990)]{ant90} Antonucci, R., Barvainis, R., \& Alloin, D. 1990, \apj, 353, 416
476:
477: \bibitem[Barthel(1989)]{bar89} Barthel, P.\ D.. 1989, \apj, 336, 606
478:
479: \bibitem[Blundell(2001)]{blu01} Blundell, K. M., \& Rawlings, S. 2001, \apjl, 562, L5
480:
481: \bibitem[Carini(1992)]{car92} Carini, M.\ T., Miller, H.\ R., Noble, J.\ C., \&
482: Goodrich, B.\ D. 1992, \aj, 104, 15
483:
484: \bibitem[Cellone et al.(2000)]{cel00} Cellone, S.\ A., Romero, G.\ E., \& Combi J.\ A. 2000,
485: \aj, 119, 1534
486:
487: \bibitem[Dermer(1995)]{der95} Dermer, C.\ D. 1995, \apjl, 446, L63
488:
489: \bibitem[de Diego et al.(1998)]{die98} de Diego, J.A., Dultzin-Hacyan, D., Ram\'irez, A., \&
490: Ben\'itez, E. 1998, \apj, 501, 69
491:
492: \bibitem[Falcke et al.(1995)]{fal95} Falcke, H., Malkan, M.\ A., \& Biermann, P.\ L. 1995, A\&A, 298, 375
493:
494: \bibitem[George et al.(2000)]{geo00} George, I.\ M., %et al.
495: Turner, T., Yaqoob, T., Netzer, H.,
496: Laor, A., Mushotzky, R., Nandra, K., \& Takahashi, T.
497: 2000, \apj, 531, 52
498:
499: \bibitem[Gopal-Krishna et al.(2000)]{gop00} Gopal-Krishna, Gupta, A.\ C., Sagar, R., Wiita, P.\ J.,
500: Chaubey, U.\ S., \& Stalin, C.S. 2000, \mnras, 314, 815
501:
502: \bibitem[Gopal-Krishna et al.(1995)]{gop95} Gopal-Krishna, Sagar, R., \& Wiita, P.\ J. 1995, \mnras, 274, 701
503:
504: \bibitem[Gopal-Krishna et al.(1993)]{gop93} Gopal-Krishna, Wiita, P.\ J., \& Altieri B. 1993, A\&A, 271, 216
505:
506: \bibitem[Ivezi{\'c} et al.(2002)]{ive02} Ivezi{\'c}, Z., et al. 2002, \aj, 124, 2364
507:
508: \bibitem[Jang \& Miller(1995)]{jan95} Jang, M., \& Miller, H.\ R. 1995, \apj, 452, 582
509:
510: \bibitem[Jang \& Miller(1997]{jan97} Jang, M., \& Miller, H.\ R. 1997, \aj, 114, 565
511:
512: \bibitem[Kellermann et al.(1994)]{kel94} Kellermann, K.\ I., Sramek, R.\ A., Schmidt, M., Green, R.\ F., \&
513: Shaffer, D.\ B., 1994, \aj, 108, 1163
514:
515: \bibitem[Kukula et al.(1998)]{kuk98} Kukula, M.\ J., Dunlop, J.\ S., Hughes, D.\ H.,
516: \& Rawlings, S. 1998,
517: \mnras, 297, 366
518:
519: \bibitem[Mangalam \& Wiita(1993)]{man93}Mangalam, A.\ V., \& Wiita, P.\ J. 1993,
520: \apj, 406, 420
521:
522: \bibitem[Marscher et al.(1992)]{mar92} Marscher, A.\ P., Gear, W.\ K., \& Travis, J.\ P. 1992, in
523: Variability of Blazars, ed.\ E.\ Valtaoja \& M.\ Valtonen
524: (Cambridge: CUP), 85
525:
526: \bibitem[Miller et al.(1989)]{mil89} Miller, H.\ R., Carini, M., \& Goodrich, B. 1989,
527: \nat, 337, 627
528:
529: \bibitem[Miller et al.(1990)]{mil90} Miller, L., Peacock, J.\ A., \& Mead. A.\ R.\ G. 1990,
530: \mnras, 244, 207
531:
532: \bibitem[Miller et al.(1993)]{mil93} Miller, P., Rawlings, S., \& Saunders, R. 1993,
533: \mnras, 263, 425
534:
535: \bibitem[Noble et al.(1997)]{nob97} Noble, J.\ C., Carini, M.\ T., Miller, H.\ R., \& Goodrich, B.
536: 1997, \aj, 113, 1995
537:
538: \bibitem[Papadopoulos et al.(1995)]{pap95} Papadopoulos, P.\ P., Seaquist, E.\ R., Wrobel, J.\ M., \& Binette, L.,
539: 1995, \apj, 446, 150
540:
541: \bibitem[Rabbette(1998)]{rab98} Rabbette, M., McBreen, B., Smith, N., \& Steel, S. 1998, A\&AS, 129, 445
542:
543:
544: \bibitem[Romero et al.(1999)]{rom99} Romero, G.\ E., Cellone, S.\ A., \& Combi, J.\ A. 1999,
545: \aaps, 135, 477
546:
547: \bibitem[Sagar et al.\(1996)]{sag96} Sagar, R., Gopal-Krishna, \& Wiita, P.\ J. 1996, \mnras, 281, 1267
548:
549: \bibitem[Sopp \& Alexander(1991)]{sop91} Sopp, H.\ M., \& Alexander, P. 1991, \mnras, 251, 14P
550:
551: \bibitem[Stalin(2002)]{sta02} Stalin, C.\ S. 2002, Ph.D. dissertation, Kumaun University
552:
553: \bibitem[Stein(1996)]{ste96} Stein, W.\ A. 1996, \aj, 112, 909
554:
555: \bibitem[Stocke(1992)]{sto92} Stocke, J.\ T., Morris, S.\ L., Weymann, R.\ J., \& Foltz, C.\ B.
556: 1992, \apj, 396, 487
557:
558: \bibitem[Terlevich et al.(1992)]{ter92} Terlevich, R., Tenorio-Tagle, G., Franco, J.,
559: \& Melnick, J. 1992, \mnras,
560: 255, 713
561:
562: \bibitem[Urry \& Padovani(1995)]{urr95} Urry, C.\ M., \& Padovani, P. 1995, \pasp, 107, 803
563:
564: \bibitem[Veron-Cetty \& Veron(1998)]{ver98} Veron-Cetty, M.\ P., \& Veron, P. 1998, A Catalog of AGN and Quasars,
565: ESO Scientific Report 18
566:
567: \bibitem[Wagner \& Witzel(1995)]{wag95} Wagner, S.\ J., \& Witzel, A. 1995, ARA\&A, 33, 163
568:
569: \bibitem[Wilson \& Colbert(1995)]{wil95} Wilson, A.\ S., \& Colbert, E.\ J.\ M. 1995,
570: \apj, 438, 62
571:
572: \bibitem[Zhang et al.(2002)]{zha02} Zhang, L.\ Z., Fan, J.\ H., \& Cheng, K.\ S. 2002, PASJ, 54, 159
573:
574: \end{thebibliography}
575:
576: \clearpage
577: \begin{table}
578: \begin{center}
579: %\begin{table}[t]
580: \caption{The sample of radio-quiet quasars and BL Lac objects\tablenotemark{a}\label{tbl-1}}
581: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
582: \baselineskip=20pt
583: \scriptsize{
584: \begin{tabular}{lllllllll}
585:
586: \tableline
587: \tableline
588:
589: & & & & & & & & \\
590: Set& Object & Other Name &Type & ~~B & ~~$M_B$ & ~~~z & N\tablenotemark{b}&
591: Observation durations ($h$) and variability status\tablenotemark{c}
592: \\
593:
594: No.& & & & & & & & \\
595:
596: \tableline
597: %\hline \hline
598: & & & & & & & & \\
599: 1. & 0945+438 & US 995 & RQQ & 16.45 & $-$24.3 & 0.226 & 3 & 8.0(NV), 6.3(NV), 6.6(NV) \\
600: & 1215+303 & B2 1215+30 & BL & 16.07 & $-$24.8 & 0.237 & 4 & 7.0(V,5.5,3.5), 5.9(NV), 5.0(NV), 6.8(V,4.9,1.8) \\
601: 2. & 0514$-$005 & 1E 0514-0030 & RQQ & 16.26 & $-$25.1 & 0.291 & 3 & 5.3(NV), 5.8(NV), 7.5(NV) \\
602: & 1215+303 & B2 1215+30 & BL & 16.07 & $-$24.8 & 0.237 & 4\tablenotemark{d} & 7.0(V,5.5,3.5), 5.9(NV), 5.0(NV), 6.8(V,4.9,1.8) \\
603: 3. & 1252+020 & Q 1252+0200 & RQQ & 15.48 & $-$26.2 & 0.345 & 5 & 6.4(V,3.3,2.3), 6.1(NV),4.3(V,3.6,0.9), 4.6(NV), 7.3(NV) \\
604: & 0851+202 & OJ 287 & BL & 15.91 & $-$25.5 & 0.306 & 4 & 6.8(V,2.8,2.3), 5.6(V,6.5,3.8), 4.2(V,5.8,5.0), 6.9(V,2.7,2.8) \\
605: 4. & 1101+319 & TON 52 & RQQ & 16.00 & $-$26.2 & 0.440 & 4 & 8.5(NV), 5.6(NV), 6.1(V,2.6,1.2), 5.8(NV) \\
606: & 0735+178 & PKS 0735+17 & BL & 16.76 & $-$25.4 &$>$0.424& 4 & 7.8(NV), 7.4(NV), 6.0(NV), 7.3(V,2.8,1.0) \\
607: 5. & 1029+329 & CSO 50 & RQQ & 16.00 & $-$26.7 & 0.560 & 5 & 5.0(NV), 5.3(V,4.3,1.3), 5.8(NV), 8.5(NV), 6.8(V,3.8,1.2) \\
608: & 0219+428 & 3C 66A & BL & 15.71 & $-$26.5 & 0.444 & 7 & 6.5(V,6.0,5.4), 5.7(V,$>$6.6,5.5), 9.1(V,5.8,4.3), 10.1(V,3.5,3.2), \\
609: & & & & & & & & 9.0(V,2.9,2.2), 5.1(NV), 5.1(V,$>$6.6,8.0) \\
610: 6. & 0748+294 & QJ 0751+2919 & RQQ & 15.00 & $-$29.0 & 0.910 & 6 & 7.6(NV), 8.3(NV), 5.1(NV), 5.4(NV), 6.0(NV), 5.4(NV)\\
611: & 0235+164 & AO 0235+164 & BL & 16.46 & $-$27.6 & 0.940 & 3 & 6.6(V,$>$6.6,12.8), 6.2(V,3.2,10.3), 7.9(V,2.6,7.6) \\
612: 7. & 1017+279 & TON 34 & RQQ & 16.06 & $-$29.8 & 1.918 & 3 & 7.3(NV), 7.1(NV), 8.1(NV) \\
613:
614: \tableline
615: \end{tabular}
616:
617: \tablenotetext{a} {Data are taken from V\'{e}ron-Cetty \& V\'{e}ron (1998).}
618: \tablenotetext{b} {Number of nights of observation.}
619: \tablenotetext{c}{NV = not variable, V = variable; when V, followed by $C_{\rm eff}$
620: and $\psi$(\%) values.}
621: \tablenotetext{d}{Data taken from the Set 1 which also includes this BL Lac.}
622:
623: % end of \scriptsize
624: }
625:
626: \end{center}
627: \end{table}
628:
629:
630: \clearpage
631: \begin{figure}
632: % USE OF PLOTONE HERE DRIVES CAPTION OFF PAGE
633: %\plotone{fig1.eps}
634: % SO WE USE THE FOLLOWING
635: \vspace*{-5.0cm}
636: \centerline{\vbox{\epsfxsize=18cm\epsfbox{f1.eps}}}
637: \vspace*{-7.5cm}
638: %
639: \caption{R-band differential light curves (DLCs) for the RQQs 1029$+$329 (left)
640: and 1252$+$020 (right), derived using aperture radii of 4$^{\prime\prime}$.1
641: and 3$^{\prime\prime}$.6, respectively.
642: The top three panels show the DLCs of each RQQ relative to the three comparison
643: stars, while the next three panels below display
644: the DLCs for the comparison stars, as labeled on the right side. The bottom panel for each RQQ shows
645: the DLC for a star pair, also present on the CCD frames, for which the
646: differential R$-$B color is comparable to that for the DLCs of the
647: corresponding RQQ.
648: The J2000 coordinates of the
649: stars in the left panels are:
650: S1 (10h32m8.94s, $+$32$^\circ$37$^{\prime}$50$^{\prime \prime}$.7),
651: S2 (31m59.46s, 41$^{\prime}$56$^{\prime \prime}$.1),
652: S4 (32m7.50s, 37$^{\prime}$28$^{\prime \prime}$.1),
653: and S5 (31m57.24s, 39$^{\prime}$19$^{\prime \prime}$.8).
654: The corresponding values for the stars in the right panels are:
655: S1 (12h55m21.00s, +01$^\circ$41$^{\prime}$13$^{\prime \prime}$.9),
656: S3 (55m33.90s, 45$^{\prime}$20$^{\prime \prime}$.9),
657: S4 (55m15.60s, 43$^{\prime}$54$^{\prime \prime}$.9),
658: and S5 (55m36.06s, 42$^{\prime}$4$^{\prime \prime}$.4).
659: The numbers inside the parentheses
660: to the right of the DLCs are the differences between the (R-B) colors
661: of the corresponding pair of objects (as taken from the USNO catalog:
662: %\url{http://archive.eso.org/skycat/servers/usnoa}).
663: http://archive.eso.org/skycat/servers/usnoa).
664: }
665: \end{figure}
666:
667: \clearpage
668: \begin{figure}
669: \plotone{f2.eps}
670: %\vspace*{-3.0cm}
671: %\centerline{\vbox{\epsfxsize=18cm\epsfbox{fig2.ps}}}
672: %\vspace*{-7.0cm}
673: \caption{Duty cycles of the intranight optical variability (INOV) of the
674: RQQs and BL Lacs (as determined using the DLCs for all the RQQs and BL Lacs
675: in our sample), for two ranges of peak-to-peak variability amplitude,
676: $\psi$ (see text).
677: %The blank portion of the histogram refers to the one case designated as
678: %`probably variable'.
679: The 7 RQQs were observed on 29 nights for a
680: total of 185.8 hours; the 5 BL Lacs, for 148.1 hours on 22 nights (Table 1).}
681: \end{figure}
682:
683: \clearpage
684: \begin{figure}
685: \plotone{f3.eps}
686: %\vspace*{-3.0cm}
687: %\centerline{\vbox{\epsfxsize=18cm\epsfbox{fig3.ps}}}
688: %\vspace*{-1.0cm}
689: \caption{The top panel shows the R-band DLC from observations on
690: 1999 November 12 of the BL Lac object AO 0235$+$164 for which
691: $\delta_o = 8.1$
692: (Zhang et al.\ 2002). The remaining three panels show the DLCs
693: simulated from the observed DLC, by applying a correction for Doppler
694: de-beaming appropriate to progressively lower values of $\delta$
695: (which involves an amplitude contraction and temporal stretching,
696: see text). The total amplitude, $\Delta$ mag, for each panel is 0.1-mag and the
697: indicated time duration of each frame in any of the four panels is
698: 6.6 hours (in the observer's frame of reference).}
699: \end{figure}
700:
701: \end{document}
702:
703:
704:
705:
706: %*****************************************************************
707:
708: